Recent Comments

Sitemeter

Answer Tips

Buzzfeed

Pinger

31 October 2010

I have a confession to make. It is with growing feelings of inferiority and frustration that I look at the growing list of authors who, according to widely accepted verdict of literary critics belong to the Pantheon of greatness or already put their first foot into it, and yet I still cannot make myself like them. Not to put too fine a polish on the sad fact, in many cases I wasn't even able to finish some of their books.

Of course it's a matter of taste, you will say, and it's perfectly excusable for a person to fall in love with one author and to hate another's books. But still, seeing as how most of the civilized world sings hosannas to a book and not being able to progress beyond page 32 is kind of alarming. On the other hand, I am not into reading literary criticism, resorting to this kind of stuff only when I am overly puzzled by an author, like in case of Jonathan Franzen. I have dutifully read two of his earlier books: The Twenty-Seventh City and The Corrections. While I can't say that I fell in love with them or even that I liked them, I can at least carve two additional notches on my reading glasses and declare that I am done with Mr Franzen forever.

But fate, apparently, has its own goals and, no matter what Internet page I open lately or what paper I happen to spread on my breakfast table, Franzen's name in conjunction with his new book Freedom jumps in my face. What should I do after announcing, albeit only to myself, that I've already paid my dues to that author - with all due respect and all that?

So, feeling that my resistance is waning and that my right hand is going to click on the Amazon button and one-click-order the book, I've resorted to that act of despair: I have started reading criticism of that book in particular and of the author in general. Poor I...

By now I know why the right hates Freedom (don't expect to learn something about the book, but the piece is verily an abattoir of right-wing literary critics). I also know why I should love the book and its author. I have been on Amazon and have seen that as many people hate the book as love it (as usual, actually). Etc. But the main question: should I or shouldn't I click that Amazon button - remained unanswered. Then I have stumbled upon Franzen's interview with Guardian's Sarfraz Manzoor. What can I say? Franzen is very likable: thoughtful, free of self-importance, rather shy, suspicious of authorities - in short, every attribute that will always win a place in my heart. And he is chock-full of guilt, that without being Jewish! Take, for instance, the following verbiage that appears in the area of 6:20 (not a precise transcript):

Our treatment of the Indians... our long relationship with slavery... and then the Cold War - we were certainly culpable...

Oops... let's run the last one again. And again. Hmm... yes, so, according to Mr Franzen, US is culpable in the Cold War. That's not a novel statement. It was frequently and generously used by the other side of the Cold War, but of course, where the other side used a buzzword, there always happened quite a few folks on this side of the Curtain to echo the sentiment. And still it's eerie to hear this in XXI century. One would have expected the fellow travelers of the late Soviet Union to be extinct or too old and quiet by now. Unless, of course, we are talking some stupid dinosaurs of the extreme left media like Seumas Milne and such.

Mr Franzen is born in 1959: not too young to be absolutely excluded from a list of potential Soviet fellow travelers, but still too young for this possibility to be explored seriously. And that "almost rogue state", happily picked up by the buzzards of the Guardian, doesn't point at a fellow traveler, just at a typical confused lefty who successfully passed the mandatory liberal arts education in US and a complimentary ideological brainwashing in Europe. One practically expects some raving and grumbling re "military - industrial" complex, the right-wing cabal etc. And the subject doesn't disappoint, freely providing his view on "the degree to which... we are almost a rogue state and causing enormous trouble around the world... to preserve our freedom to drive SUVs...".

Still, much is excusable (or practically expected) when dealing with a genius. Much, but not that peculiar vision of "culpability in the Cold War". Sorry, Mr Franzen, whatever left-wing garbage your "liberal" mind collected during the brainwashing period, too many people owe too much to the victors of the Cold War for your opinion of it to be excusable.

But the interview didn't stop there. Mr Franzen has decided to share more of his wisdom in the bloody fields of sociology and history (transcript imprecise):

It does make one wonder what is it in our national character that is making us such a problem state and I think that a kind of mixed up childish notion of freedom and perhaps... really, truly - who left Europe to go over there? It was all the malcontents, people who were not getting along with others...

The depth of this analysis is staggering. I mean, where else but in an interview a leading progressive American writer gives to a most progressive British media outfit could one gain such a pearl of cutting edge wisdom? It's a pity that Mr Franzen stopped there, without explaining how come the peaceful and easy-to-get-along-with denizens of enlightened Europe, after getting rid of their malcontents, their bullies, their hooligans, suddenly decided to kill off one another and did it for about two hundred years with zeal and skill unmatched in the recorded history.

It is also strange that the interviewer, so obviously delighted with the text quoted above, decided to make do with it, refraining from questioning Mr Franzen on that other missing part. Yeah, I am being facetious here a bit... Guardian always gets the worst out of me...

To conclude: this interview decided the question for me. I will not click that Amazon widget. The budget, almost spent on Freedom, shall go to some other happy graduate of liberal arts. Someone else will have to wade through the book, which effort, judging by the two others I read, will be considerable. So good luck to someone else.

And I shall leave Jonathan Franzen to his dull, throbbing anxiety. Better him than me...

Afterword:

Meanwhile I have learned that, according to the currently accepted classification, Franzen adheres to the genre of hysterical realism. To my surprise and delight, I have found out that the list of authors belonging to hysterical realism covers a high percentage of the books and authors I have mentioned re my feelings of inferiority and frustration... Lucky me, indeed. I've also discovered that it sometimes pays off to read literary critics. Go figure...

If you want to know more about this literary genre, I warmly recommend this article.

30 October 2010

This ground-breaking essay by No Good Boyo opens the way for more fundamental research into the role of yetis in modern history in general.

On my side I can only contribute a rather trivial observation that somehow escaped more astute researchers of the subject. I suspect that yetis spread their influence wider than is generally considered. Proof:

The article is posted in the "Science" rubric of Fox News. To make sure, you know.

The "expert" whose opinion is (ab)used in the article is John Shane, director of the communication supplies consulting service with market research firm InfoTrends. His expertise, whatever it is, certainly isn't in the domain of explosive postal packages. But Mr Shane is really not guilty in the sheer inanity of the article in general and, especially, that exceptionally stupid headline. He definitely and clearly says: "you could take apart a notebook PC or you could take apart a can of coffee."

And you can continue reading and taking apart the article, but it's really up to you...

"Substance abuse" is a pretty vague term. Should we be interested in what kind of substance the guy abused? And how does one abuse a substance? Nah, we better relax. And there is no better way to relax than watching this:

26 October 2010

Republicans don't cut anything. They don't reduce the size of anything. They take their turn behind the wheel of the car, keeping it going in the same direction, but stop at different restaurants, tourist traps, and hotels. But they change nothing that matters.

Edney, in a phone interview with the CBC from Guantanamo Bay, labelled the plea deal "a piece of paper" and said his client "would have confessed to anything, including the killing of John F. Kennedy, just to get out of this hellhole."

Yeas, we know, dear, good lawyer, good lawyer...

The only remaining question is: would we now have to wait for the next generation of Khadrs to grow up and continue the family tradition or will the current one repeat some of its feats?

25 October 2010

So, the sky has thundered. The leader of one of most politically correct, sensitive and holier-than-thou countries in Europe finally delivered a coup de grâce to already dying unnatural creature called multiculturalism. It's quite the time, and let's be frank: the European (and not only European, but later about it) implementation of this inherently flawed doctrine is a wretched baby of governmental bureaucracy, "progressive" stupidity, natural laziness of most do-gooders and our other lesser foibles.

Multiculturalism, in many feverish progressive minds, was supposed to become an unending festival of mutual enrichment, poetic meeting of different cultures under the benevolent watch of the government sponsor, where foodstuffs, music, language, dance, love (don't ever forget love) and other ethnic delights flow every each way unimpeded. In the grim reality of thousands so called European "projects" it turned out to be just lots of newly erected ghettos bringing alienation, lack of common language and, indeed, common culture. Well, lack of common culture was built into the idea of multikulti to start with, you would say, and you will be right. Of course, this is precisely the point. This is what ghetto tends to do to its inhabitants - a majority of them just don't see any need to make an effort and integrate into the host society. And the host society hardly cares - as long as the streets remain clean, the cars are produced on schedule, the garbage removed etc.

But over time the source of cheap workforce becomes a source of troubles. The confession "We kidded ourselves for a while that they wouldn't stay, but that's not the reality" came at a cost to be paid by many generations to come. The newly born kids of the people who were supposed to be temporary (and paying) guests grow up as alienated from the life outside the ghetto as their parents are. As a result, ghettos become a major source of unemployed, idle and discontented youth or, in other words, excellent breeding ground for recruiters of extremist ideologies and/or religions.

In short the multikulti parents' dream was about the natural solution to immigrants' issues by just seeing them off to the "projects", giving them low-paying menial jobs and waiting to enjoy the rich fruit of multiculturalism in action. The dream appeared to be just that - a dream. And Angela Merkel was only the first to voice the inescapable conclusion.

Absorption (an Israeli term for successful assimilation of a new immigrant) is a long and difficult process that requires a lot of attention, patience and investment from the government, from volunteers, from neighbors. When it is substituted by just settling the immigrants with common ethnic background together and hoping for the best, the results are always the same: poor to non-existent assimilation, lack of language, lack of understanding of local culture and customs. And the problem doesn't go away with the first immigrant generation, it stays with the children. Israel (to take one example) is full of examples of successful and failed integration. All follow the same pattern.

Why do I refer to Israel, you may want to ask? For two reasons. One is already mentioned: Israel has a lot of experience - good and bad - with absorbing huge (compared to the size of its population) waves of immigration. Second reason is rather different: The rising wave of xenophobia in Europe is bad for all European minorities. It may start with Muslims, but Roma, Jews, Poles, Russians etc. are not far behind on the list. In fact, Roma may be the first on the European xenophobia list at the moment.

What else? Yes, it's impossible not to mention the response to Merkel's thunder from some "progressive" commentators. First there was silence for a day or two: the gurus just couldn't believe their eyes and ears, apparently. Then the responses started trickling in. Like this rather pathetic one by Philip Oltermann, a German guy, full of good intentions, who tries to dispel the clear message of Merkel by anecdotal examples of his multikulti family and friends. Of course, population osmosis happens even in generally unsuccessful cases. People do leave ghettos, no argument about it - but what about the ones who stay there? Of course, Philip doesn't have an answer.

Another way of attacking the message and the messenger was found quite quickly: according to many (too many to mention by name or to link), Merkel is anti-immigration in general, feeding the base instincts of the right wing (or worse) German electorate. And it's patently untrue. Stephen Evans hit the bull's eye saying:

In other words, her basic message is that integration has not worked - but it needs to.

And, of course, the august voice of UN didn't hesitate for too long a time, warning Europe against "stereotyping that closes minds and breeds hatred". Whatever that means and whatever it contributes (nothing would be my guess). And of course, we are being reminded how many neo-Nazis and their sympathizers there are in Germany, as if the problem of failed multiculturalism will be resolved once neo-Nazis disappear...

But what about Merkel's own diagnostics of the problem? If indeed, as it is quoted here:

She stated that too little had been required of immigrants in Germany, and that they should learn German so they can better succeed in school and in the labor market.

Ms Merkel is barking up a wrong tree. There was nothing and nobody to encourage the immigrants to learn the language and to integrate. Now Europe is reaping what it saw for many years of carefree import of cheap workforce. As correctly (to my utter surprise) summarizes this Indy leader:

If integration is now to be the focus, however, the effort will have to be two-sided. As well as requiring migrants to do more, governments and the indigenous population will have to try harder, too. And this will take funds – for language tuition, better schooling and homes – at a time when money is in very short supply.

While this post languished in its draft form, something useful happened. A few days ago I've tried to take to task one Adrian Hamilton, an Indy scribe, who is denying Israel its right to be "a uniquely Jewish state" in the midst of "Muslim majority Middle East". This, uniquely moronic and racist statement, is uttered by a person who surely considers self progressive. I have said about Mr Hamilton in that post:

A member of multi-cultural progressive British elite who in any other situation will risk his life for your right to express your personal ethnic "I"...

And here Mr Hamilton comes out swinging, in a spirited, albeit moronic, defense of multikulti.

Multiculturalism was once a term of tolerance, an acceptance of difference in an increasingly cosmopolitan and urbanised western world.

No, it wasn't, dear Adrian. It was rather a surrender to the necessity to bring all these black, brown and otherwise colored heathen into the country for jobs you and your brethren didn't want to do. It was also a good cover for unwillingness or inability to do what should have been done, once the people were brought in: invest money, time and good will into their real integration. But of course, our Mr Hamilton is not done yet. He anticipates criticism in his vacuous way, and succeeds, in two consecutive short paragraphs, to contradict himself in a brilliantly stupid (OK, what can I do?) manner:

It [Multiculturalism] wasn't a policy of letting everyone do their own thing so much as a counteraction to the suspicion and hostility to difference that immigration was bringing.

Then:

Its assumption was that immigrants, just as the Huguenots and the Jews of the late 19th century had, would integrate through generations, that over time their children would grow up much like everyone else in their society.

So, on one hand, "do nothing" wasn't exactly a policy of multikulti. It has just happened so, exactly as with them Huguenots and the Jews... over generations... oh boy...

In short: Europe is looking into abyss. And the only good thing is that some more courageous leaders are willing to face the facts, instead of hiding behind the mental paralysis of the "progressives".

23 October 2010

I am watching with some interest the unfolding battle between Ben Dror Yemini - opinion-editor of the daily newspaper Maariv and the self-appointed "conscience of Israel" - Gideon Levy, the editor of Haaretz.

The fight started with Mr Levy giving a rather long and boring interview to his partner in journalistic sloppiness: Johann Hari of Independent. In this interview, among other "facts", Gideon Levy has presented the following example of Israeli bloodthirstiness and lack of proper feelings:

During Operation Cast Lead, the Israel bombing of blockaded Gaza in 2008-9, “a dog – an Israeli dog – was killed by a Qassam rocket and it on the front page of the most popular newspaper in Israel. On the very same day, there were tens of Palestinians killed, they were on page 16, in two lines.”

Ben Dror Yemini, being more of a professional journalist than Levy will ever be, was incensed by this spoof and the whole travesty of the interview and has done something that Levy never bothers with: basic investigation. The result was an article in NRG: Baron of deceit industry (in Hebrew). Before we plunge into the article, here goes its lede:

If you wish to know how demonization of Israel is concocted, you should read Gideon Levy in an interview with a British newspaper. The body of lies by the Israeli journalist makes Pravda, in its bad days, into a reliable and serious newspaper.

Keep it in mind. Keep in mind also the following opinion by Ben Dror:

...earlier this week I was asked by a young Israeli I do not know personally, how can I sit in a television studio with Gideon Levy, and not boil from indignation. I assured him I was proud to live in a country where there is a Gideon Levy, who writes and kicks freely. Any other option will be worse.

So Ben Dror Yemini went to the archives "of the most popular newspaper in Israel" - Yediot Achronot and checked what appeared to be all the daily issues for the three weeks of the war. To be on the safe side, he also checked the same days' issues of the second most popular newspaper - Maariv. Result - zero. No dog.

But the dead dog is only one of the points raised by Yemini. There are many more in that article, so the best I can offer is that Google translation, unfortunately not nearly good enough.

To get this post into a reasonable frame size-wise, I shall skip the other items, focusing on the unfortunate dead dog for a while. Anyhow, unlike in many other cases of his frequent journalistic snafus, Levy decided to go to war and published a rebuttal of Yemini's article. In Haaretz the rebuttal doesn't include the newspapers' front pages, but there is a copy on a site called Israeli Occupation Archive, and you can see there the front pages of both Yediot and Maariv. Only... but I shall let Levy explain this:

The dog: Oops. I misstated the date of publication of the page-one pictures.

Check this out: both pictures belong to these two newspapers indeed. The only small (for Levy) problem is that they are dated three years before the times Levy so poignantly described to his bosom buddy Johann. But this "Oops" is a very rare phenomenon for Levy: usually he doesn't bother even with his oopses. Indeed, issuing oopses will interfere with his stream of propaganda articles...

And I use the word "propaganda" advisedly, since this oops and, especially, the lack of many other oopses make Gideon Levy into what he really is: a propagandist who is rarely bothered with facts, making do with using anything and ignoring anything that helps/stands in his way to another small victory of anti-Israeli propaganda.

Levy's rebuttal should be read in its entirety for two reasons: first of all, for lack of the English translation of Yemini's article: Levy attempts to rebut other points Yemini made, so it will save you reading Yemini's stuff in its bad Google translation. Second reason is to see how clumsy is Levy's footwork when arguing with something he is not able to disprove.

Again: I was surprised by Levy's gall in going head-to-head with Yemini. Usually he tends to avoid any reference to his past snafus. To remind you of his latest and most glaring:

The day after the shooting of two Israeli officers (one dead, one severely wounded) by Lebanese sniper, in spite of IDF following all the small letters of established procedure on the border, which fact was confirmed by all levels of UNIFIL, Levy righteously (and falsely) thunders:

We'll continue to ignore UNIFIL, ignore the Lebanese Army and its new brigade commander, who has the nerve to think that his job is to protect his country's sovereignty.

It took a few days for all the facts absolving IDF from any responsibility for what has occurred on the border to come in. Has Levy mentioned that he was on the wrong side of the argument in this piece? Nah...

The story of Sabbar Kashur, an Arab Israeli convicted for rape on "false pretenses". Judging by the conviction only, without showing a smidgen of interest in the details of the case itself, Gideon Levy rained brimstone and (why not call it frankly?) shit on the cruel racist Israel in a notoriously titled piece He impersonated a human. Read it yourself, if you wish. And then, the real story of the rapist and chronic liar Sabbar Kashur is published. Instead of a man who was unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned - all this for being an Arab, we get something entirely different, don't we? And what does Gideon Levy do? Apologize, retract, what? You have guessed by now, haven't you...

Benjamin Kerstein, a Senior Writer for The New Ledger, exploits the options that Gideon Levy faces in regards to this case:

If Levy has any professional honor left, and if Haaretz wants to salvage some measure of its integrity, then both should do the right thing, at long last. Levy should resign immediately. He should issue a written apology to the victim of this assault and allow it to be published publicly. If he does not do so, Haaretz should fire him. If he does resign, Haaretz should also issue its own apology for its coverage of the issue.

Yeah... Gideon Levy and professional honor... The former wouldn't recognize the latter if it bit him on the arse, that's for sure. Sorry for being cynical, Benjamin.

Now back to the dead dog. First, actually to Johann Hari of Independent. The headline of his article asks: Is Gideon Levy the most hated man in Israel or just the most heroic? Neither, Johann. Not enough people read Haaretz to make Levy anything "most" in Israel, and hate is too strong an emotion to be leveled at a lying hack. Heroic? You make my dog laugh, and I don't even have a dog...

But since we have mentioned dogs so frequently: that IDF dog is dead and buried for five years. I bet that if exhumed, his remains wouldn't even stink. Unlike Gideon Levy, who is alive and kicking, and may he continue so until (at least) 120. You see, Johann, your friend Gideon stinks to high heaven.

21 October 2010

The article is quite difficult to follow, with all the complicated interaction between Pakistani Muslims of different brands. Suffice to mention that Pakistan is where the initial enmity stems from. As for the moment:

Hardline Islamists in Britain have been distributing leaflets calling for the murder of Ahmadi Muslims in Kingston-upon-Thames whilst mosques have been vandalised in Newham and Crawley.

I guess that wrecking a mosque or two is only the initial step in the master plan. The imams' attitude toward the sect is quite no-nonsense, I would say:

When a caller named Asim asked for a scholar to explain whether Ahmadis were legitimate Muslims the imam replied: "Since the time of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) the Sahiba [knowledgeable scholars] have confirmed that anyone who believes in a prophet after the Holy Prophet is a kafir [unbeliever], murtad [apostate] and Wajib-ul Qatal [liable for death]."

This is the essence of high learning freely transmitted over Muslim channels in the motherland of the free speech. So what do the beleaguered British authorities do about it?

This week Ofcom criticised [sic!] the Ummah Channel for a string of three programmes broadcast shortly before and after the Lahore massacre in which clerics and callers alike said Ahmadis should be killed.

And:

Police in Kingston-upon-Thames have opened a hate crime investigation earlier this summer when an Ahmadi woman was handed a leaflet by a man which stated: "Kill [an Ahmadi] and the doors to heaven will be open for you."

Yeah, I bet that the inciters of violence are shaking in their boots seeing such a forceful response. What they are doing besides shaking is muddying the water in their usual fashion: to start with, blaming the victim.

Imam Suhail Bawa, a leading Khatme Nubbawat preacher, told worshippers: "This will become apparent very soon to you all that Qadiani [a derogatory term for Ahmadis] themselves are behind this whole conspiracy. [They] are responsible for whatever has happened in Lahore. This is all Qadiani conspiracy. They now come to television programs to try to "falsely" demonstrate their victimisation."

Does it sound familiar from other parts of the globe? When this crude and stupid attempt fails, there is the old faithful line - blame the translation:

"The words 'apostates' and 'infidels' are understood differently in English than in their Islamic theological sense, especially within the Urdu-speaking Muslims..."

Rabbi Shmuely Boteach is an inventive guy. Here he shows a cool workaround he found for homosexuals:

There are 613 commandments in the Torah. One is to refrain from gay sex. Another is for men and women to marry and have children. So when Jewish gay couples come to me for counselling and tell me they have never been attracted to the opposite sex in their entire lives and are desperately alone, I tell them, "You have 611 commandments left. That should keep you busy...."

611... yeah...

Do you know what, Shmuely? I waive my rights to that deal, remaining what I am - straight and secular.

20 October 2010

It is considered a faux pas to laugh at people who fight for their well-being. People who hear you laughing may brand you as a rightist wingnut or altogether politically incorrect. And I don't even know which of the two is worse nowadays...

Anyway, the strikes in France are caused this time by the government's intention to raise the pension threshold age from 60 to 62. This measure is contemplated by many other EU countries and, thanks to our current PM (then minister of finance) was already implemented here - without too much disruption or destruction, I have to add.

In French case, the age of 60 is one of the lowest in the world. And the French working week is one of the shortest in the world. I am not a great economist, but some basic knowledge of arithmetic points to the multiple of the two parameters mentioned contributing to the problem of lacking pension funds. What say?

In any case, re the unrest in France: have you noticed that when burning the cars, which seems to be the favorite pastime of all disgruntled Frenchmen lately, they almost invariably choose Citroens? I was driving one for three years and I have to say I feel for the folks who firebomb that vehicle...

Another interesting point - as heard today on the radio: it appears that the demos, general debauchery and all that unrest slacken considerably toward weekends and resume on Monday. Which shows that French folks know when it's time for a good demo. Meaning on company time, of course...

19 October 2010

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed Justice Minister Ya'akov Ne'eman on Monday to prepare a new bill extending the loyalty oath, which is currently aimed at non-Jews, to include Jewish immigrants as well.

Of course, this amendment takes out the teeth Lieberman intended to give to that oath, but whatever keeps Bibi's coalition afloat, I guess.

18 October 2010

Says Debka. I agree. When Mahmoud the Mad was in the south of Lebanon speechifying, we should have landed a ground force consisting of 1 (one) Avigdor/Yvette Lieberman and all the weaponry and ammunition required for capture and extrusion of 1 (one) Mahmoud the Mad and transportation of the latter to Israel, having in mind opening of the first permanent Israeli circus.

A nice post on HP about Tony the GreenStalin attempt to falsify the vote of British Jews on the question of cooperation with EDL. Even with Tony barf-inducing activities the idea was rejected by absolute majority of British Jews, I am happy to add.

And of course, there is this divine coda to the post:

Tony Greenstein needs to be careful. He may end up with a reputation for dishonesty.

Ach, Tone, Tone: methinks you are too puny and pathetic to take on real people yet. Wait for about 80 years more...

15 October 2010

As a middle aged (to be PC, of course) person, I thought that my ability to be surprised is somewhat dulled by the years. So, in a way, I should be thankful to one Adrian Hamilton for the Indy article Israel has no future as a purely Jewish state. It did surprise me - as an astonishing example of nincompoopery.

One can start one's fisking with the headline of the article, specifically that "purely Jewish" term. Whatever meaning the author assigned to it, he is, probably, unaware of the ethnic structure of Israel, nor did he read the Israeli declaration of independence , which clearly states that, while being a Jewish state, it will also "will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex". How well is this promise kept is another matter, but definitely better than the world batting average.

One can also take an exception to the statement that the infamous loyalty oath - as stupid an idea as any politico gave birth to lately, agreed - "is a case of racist discrimination on any interpretation". I bet that Mr Hamilton will be hard pressed to prove it - simply because it isn't racist and there is nothing in his arsenal of poor logic to help him out...

But really, the above is small change. Trifles. Bubkes. What really takes the cake is the following:

The more closely you define Israel as a uniquely "Jewish" state, the less room there is for it to act as a co-operative member of a Muslim majority Middle East.

Amazing. Jaw dropping. Fan-effing-tastic. A member of multi-cultural progressive British elite who in any other situation will risk his life for your right to express your personal ethnic "I", even if that expression includes... nevermind, this guardian of human rights states that it's not really a good idea to be "uniquely Jewish" in the midst of a Muslim majority. Not to dwell on the fact that Israel was already defined (in 1948, see above) as "uniquely Jewish" - how does the multi-culti soul of Mr Hamilton allow him even to think in such - really racist this time - terms? How does his soul allow his stomach to keep his lunch while writing this revolting racist crapola? That is, assuming that he has written it after lunch, of course. Because, being a clever man, he has done it, most probably, well in advance of the meal.

OK. Let's move on. Because I have misled you, my dear reader. I have withheld the best part for later. Because, while the previous quote takes the cake, this one takes the cherry from that delicious dollop of whipped cream on top. It's a promise:

Its [Israel's] role becomes that of an enclave which views itself as not just separate but in clear opposition to everyone else about it.

So, being Jewish state is just the ticket to be viewed as "opposition to everyone else about". Mmm... good, even brilliant job of exhibiting your inner self, Mr Hamilton, I would say...

Now is the time for a short experiment: in the two quotes above replace "Israel" by "Scotland", "Jewish" by "Scottish" (or "Scotch" - what the heck do I know?) and, of course, "Muslim majority Middle East" by "British majority United Kingdom". Try it out and see if it's palatable...

13 October 2010

The letter says freedom of expression is promised in the Chinese constitution but not allowed in practice. They want people to be able to freely express themselves on the internet and want more respect for journalists.

I can imagine how the Chinese junta feels about this. Not that I want to give them any ideas, but:

Well, strictly speaking it's not Allah, but his closest live representative on Earth: the Rage Boy. After all, we wouldn't want to enrage the Rage Boy more by putting up the Allah's picture here?

Anyroad, you would guess that Allah, in his infinite wisdom and power as materialized in the body of Rage Boy doesn't require special protection from a wee girl like Shiva? And you would be wrong, since:

On the eve of Ahmadinejad's arrival to New York, Shiva Nazar Ahari, a prominent young female defender of human rights, received a heavy sentence of six years in prison on charges including the vague crime of "waging war against God" -- a convenient catch-all offense for anyone who criticizes the regime and its human rights record.

Now, at least, those of you who were worried about the possible threat to Allah coming from this direction, can sleep soundly. Allah is protected by the wisdom of Ayatollahs and their minion Mahmoud the Mad.

12 October 2010

Well, well, well… What’s a little retaliation amongst sahibis? “Canada's top soldier and two cabinet ministers were up in the air Monday, their flight plans disrupted after the United Arab Emirates denied them landing in retaliation for a failed business deal.”
Fair is fair. It would appear that the opulent sheikhdom might have grown a little overconfident protected by the western soldiers who are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps a tender reminder might do them good.
In the mean time the Afghans have been like waaay too rough with the poor Taliban and Al Qaida captives. Perhaps on the way out of the region Canadian soldiers could make both the Talibs and the Emiratis a favour and provide free shipping services for the former to recuperate around some nice place like Dubai.
I am sure the sheikhs will find their business booming. Literally. They deserve it.

Conveniently forgetting that China has a capitalist economy now, Hugo Chavez proves once again that he is an asslicking supporter of totalitarian oppression and dictatorship, by denouncing this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner, imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.

11 October 2010

The insidious Danny Ayalon writes in JP about almost wall to wall criticism of the "loyalty oath":

It is simply astonishing to hear all the criticism of what should be an uncontroversial amendment.

I know that anything stupid or vile of Lieberman's invention would be "uncontroversial" to his pet "diplomat" (Don't let's forget that "The writer is deputy foreign minister and an Israel Beiteinu MK".)

I am really losing track of astonishing things that happen around the Lieberman/Ayalon pair of clowns. Let's take a look at few:

10 October 2010

I have read the ingenious proposal by Fareed Z. on How to end the war in Afghanistan and am still trying to get the bad (very bad) taste out of my mouth. Why ingenious? It looks like with a few small compromises with Taliban, like selling the Afghanistan's women down the river and some such little confidence-building gestures, peace in Afghanistan could be achieved in a jiffy. But I'll let better people write about this travesty. Meanwhile, a question to the history buffs (or just experts) on this quote:

If you look at any good study of civil wars, what you find is that most of them end in a negotiated settlement.

I suspect that, like the rest of the article, it is full of crapola, but could someone confirm this feeling for me? Or reverse it?

09 October 2010

We complain about mass media aiding and abetting Palywood myth building. But here is an example of mass media creating a myth without any participation of the Palywood. From Fox news site of October 9, 2010:

As shows Exhibit 1, a "Israeli leader" has driven into Palestinian children.

Wow, one would be inclined to ask, which one of them leaders appears to be a murderous bastard?

So it's not an "Israeli leader", strictly speaking. And then comes the lede - Exhibit 3 and makes that "Settler Leader" kind of even smaller:

The leader of a well-known settler group,...

Yeah, it was a good one, Fox News...

Now you can watch the whole incident recorded by an accidentally (as usual) present video camera, not to mention multiple accidentally present photographers. But I have promised not to mention Palywood...

This is yet another example of the palestinians making a mockery of the concept of truth in order to achieve their goals. The sad thing is, they will get away with it, unless those who truly care for the truth are able to look over what they say with a discerning eye, and influence others to do so.

Of course, it's not only Mahmoud the Mad who is revving up. Debka folks are in a rare tizzy lately. Whether due to falling readership or something in the water - I don't really know. Here are few outstanding examples:

Notice that Mahmoud the Mad tells Assad to prepare for something Iran is planning to do. And Debka is wise to it, besides...

The presidents of Iran and Syria agreed in Tehran Saturday, Oct. 2, to support a Hizballah military takeover of Lebanon's power centers, including the capital Beirut, right after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ends his controversial two-day visit to the country on October 13-14.

I say, Mahmoud the Mad has to plug the leak in his secretariat. Or check his living room for mikes...

It's a good one, I promise, because if it confused you - just wait for the following:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may not have been tough enough on this issue when she met Syrian foreign minister Walid Muallem in New York Monday, Sept. 27. Damascus also inferred from the tenor of that converstion that Washington would not interfere with a Syrian-Iranian-backed Hizballah attack on Lebanon's centers of power.

The 1973 war papers released in Jerusalem, revealing that Israel then was just hours away from an air blitz against Damascus, was a message to Assad that Jerusalem was not aligned with the Americans in this.

Have you figured that out already? 37 years ago Israel was hours away from an air blitz against Assad the dad, and it's possible that in the future Israel could find itself hours away from an air blitz against Baby Assad. Wow, I say! Wow...

DEBKAFILE's counter-terror sources specializing in al Qaeda are increasingly uncomfortable with and skeptical of the comprehensive, imprecise American terror alert embracing all of Europe that was issued Oct. 3 by the US State Department.

It couldn't be clearer, stupid! Of course, the American alert is no good for "DEBKAFILE's counter-terror sources"! After all, only DEBKAFILE's counter-terror sources are able to impress DEBKAFILE's counter-terror sources...

While the details of the oath, such as who exactly will be liable to pledge it for the citizenship, its precise formula and circumstances are not yet clear, some of the details are known:

It's a pledge of loyalty to 'Jewish, democratic Israel'. Bit of oxymoron, that, but let's let it go for now.

It's needed at this moment in Israel's history about as much as a bout of shingles. And about as useful.

If, indeed, as some people say, the timing is chosen by Bibi to sweeten the new freeze in settlement construction for Lieberman (and possibly others), Bibi is even more pathetic than I thought before.

The pledge is almost everything most of its detractors say: insulting, harmful, insufficient to cement Israel's status as a Jewish democratic state, anxious, anti-civilian, a political decision and more...

Almost, but not quite everything: it's not a racist pledge. To start with, there is nothing unique in the pledge, other countries also demand a pledge from the candidates for citizenship. Then, of course, there is the issue of "Jewish and democratic" - but it's still not a race issue, rather one of stupidity.

To make the long story short: I have already promised Mr Lieberman free access to my arse for kissing purposes, should he continue with this and other wannabe-fascist ideas. He and other supporters of this oath are welcome to set up an appointment. A written and duly signed confirmation of poison sacks excision - a precondition.

On the other side of the political spectrum: MK Barakeh is cordially invited to join the above mentioned (that's for "racism" shout-out).

I understand it now, after reading a Time article Has the European Terrorism Threat Been Overhyped? by one Bruce Crumley from Paris. Er... it means that the article comes from Paris. Bruce comes from... doesn't matter really, what matters is that Bruce is one tough journo that wouldn't be surprised while on his watch. Anyway, Bruce is the Paris bureau chief for TIME, so there.

The Predators are still crisscrossing the skies of Pakistan, looking for more targets. The hapless Pakistanis are still collecting various bits of the bodies in several places where the Predators hit. It looks like there still are suspects at large - or, at least, some buildings still standing. Arrests of the suspects still continue in Europe.

And Bruce C. is already asking whether the whole threat has been overhyped. I can only imagine how tough Bruce C. would have become with CIA and other services, had a large scale attack of several targets in Europe succeeded (deity forbid). I, for one, wouldn't like to be a CIA agent in a case like that.

Anyway, read the whole article. Maybe you will get some sense out of it, where I've despaired. That is, aside of a conclusion that Bruce C. is one tough cookie and all these CIA people better shoot themselves right away, since they are damned if they do and damned if they don't...

Oh, and while you are at it, don't miss the comment by Mr Farrukh Khan, where he puts the dots over the I's...

06 October 2010

A study by the Tzomet Institute titled "Forbidden sexual relations for the sake of national security" released this week rules that female Mossad agents may have sex with the enemy in missions against terrorists.

Rabbi Ari Shvat explains: "There are ocassional, lone cases in which female agents in our secret service initiate seduction in order to protect our nation's security. The question is: Is it permissible for the state to initiate and use forbidden sexual relations in rare and extreme cases, if that is the fastest and most efficient solution for getting necessary information or stop an act that endangers national security?"

I hope that rabbi Shvat sleeps on this decision and realizes that he forgot something important. Meanwhile our field agents of male persuasion are totally demoralized.

Oh, and while we are at it:

We are putting Sky News on notice: there is no such word as "permissable". And there will be no female agents thrown in for this execution, mind you...

The French government has warned citizens traveling to Britain to exercise caution due to a very high risk of terrorist action in the country that could target public transport and tourist sites.

The British Defense Ministry warned British citizens to exercise extreme care when dining in French restaurants all over the world. "You never know with them Frenchies and their fancy dishes", said a senior defense official.

05 October 2010

This post is not about the dancing Israeli nincompoop of a soldier, nor about BBC or CNN or even FFS. It's about you. But to define "you", we'll have to peruse the two following exhibits. Which are simply lists of most popular news from BBC and CNN:

1. BBC

2. CNN

Now we can define "you". You in this case means any single one of the multitude of readers that promoted the article marked by red arrow to the list of the top stories - by being inordinately interested in it.

So, my dear YOU: I have a few words of advice to offer. First of all, peruse the list of other headlines for the same day (incidentally, it's October 5, 2010, for future reference). Then think about all this.

The recent frenetic activity by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad aka Mahmoud the Mad is really something jaw-dropping. Here is a sampler:

...in a speech Sunday he went a step further using a deeply offensive insult in response to U.S. statements that the military option against Iran is still on the table."May the undertaker bury you, your table and your body, which has soiled the world," he said using language in Iran reserved for hated enemies.

Eight people thought to be German nationals were killed in a suspected drone strike in northwestern Pakistan, two Pakistani officials said Monday.

Let's see how it translates in globalization terms: eight German citizens, probably of mixed Middle East origins (Yemen, Marocco, Saudi Arabia, Somali etc. come to mind) killed in Pakistan by Hellfire missile launched from a Predator drone, both produced in USA (General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and Lockheed Martin), some of it based on Israeli design, most of it, probably, stuffed with Taiwanese and Chinese electronics and whatnot.

The latest deluge of the articles on the UFO subject is focused on the uncanny knack of the E.T.s to disable the military nuclear installations all over the world. While the paraphernalia of the aliens continues to show the bewildering variety of shapes (saucer, fat cigar, triangle, even a orange or reddish pulsating oval-shaped object) and approaches, the main point in the latest articles was that the aliens can easily switch off whole launching sites, effectively disabling the mighty WMDs of nuclear nations.

Of course, everyone understands by now that it's not the usual "classic" foes:

Hastings said that because similar incidents had occurred in the Soviet Union - as attested to in declassified KGB files - it was not the Russians messing with us or us messing with the Russians.

Even if there is an element of flippancy in this:

"We can also rule out the Samoans," he added.

I wouldn't discard any suspect that quick, and Samoans should not be waived away in this manner too. However, due to the disturbingly high level of histrionics surrounding the nukes, the Elders have decided to come out with an explanation. No more Aliens ate my Pershing! headlines, please.

Yes, it is the Elders who meddled with your nukes, dear Americans, Brits, Russians, Chinese, French etc*. For many years we have checked (and rechecked again, as is the manner of our field operations dept.) our POND (POrtable Nuke Disabler) before it was concluded that it works as prescribed and can effectively destroy all known nuclear weapons without the operator moving his/her backside from his/her office in ...

Of course you may want to know why did we have to organize the whole megillah with flying saucers, triangles, cigars and whatnot. Why the crop circles, dripping molten metal and indentations in the forest? Why, in short, all the crapola that keeps Spielberg and many others busy for so many years and sells Prozac like there is no tomorrow?

Especially when the POND's size is about that of an iPod. Well, to start with - we needed some distraction. It certainly helps when the senior officer on duty gets several phone calls in his bunker from guards stationed on the surface, complaining about UFOs, while all nuclear missiles under his command are blinking out of existence...

And who will listen to him the next day, when half of his soldiers are on tranquilizers and the second half cannot agree whether the objects in the sky were circular, square and what kind of lights did they carry... Not to mention the crop circles. Really, let's not mention the crop circles - maybe the first two or three were fun, but after that it's a major pain in one's backside...

So, the whole UFO geschaft is being discarded by the Elders as of now. No more flying saucers, strange pulsating lights, no more audio-visual shows. And if you happen to see some strange object skulking around your neighborhood and lighting the sky in all kinds of ways, you better call the air force.

Like they care...

(*) The case of Andorran arsenal mentioned by Jams baffles us too, frankly. It could be our own installation of several thousand years ago, but what with the state of our archives and general laxity of records...